Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale
Civil Appeal No(s). 3580 of 2009
Hukum Chand Gupta
v.
Director General, ICAR & Ors.
{Decided on 25/09/2012}
(A) Service Law--Pay Scale--There can be distinction in the pay scales between the employees working at Headquarters and the employees working at the institutional level--Employees working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set of rules--Merely because any two posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level have the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales on the two posts should also be the same--The prescription of two different pay scales would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work.
It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post--There can not be any straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale--Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise--It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts--Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner--These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. (Para 20)
(B) Service Law--Pay Scale--Quantum of--Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts--The Tribunal or the Writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales. (Para 20)
Mr. Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.: - On 25th September, 2012, we passed the following order:
“Having heard the appellant-in-person and the counsel for the respondent, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The detailed reasons with conclusions shall follow.”
2. Here are the reasons.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.9595-CAT of 2004 decided on 8th August, 2008.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in Group D on 29th December, 1961 in the National Dairy Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDRI’). On 13th January, 1966, he was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Clerk) after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. He was further promoted on 10th May, 1973 as a Senior Clerk, again after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. At that stage, his pay scale was Rs.1200-2040/-. Subsequently, on 15th June, 1988, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- after passing the departmental examination. On 17th March, 1994, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The respondent revised the pay scale of Assistants on 17th June, 1995 from Rs.1400- 2600 to Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. However, the pay scale of Superintendent was not revised.
5. At that stage, the appellant submitted a representation on 24th October, 1995 requesting that his pay scale may be revised on the ground that in Headquarters of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the post of Superintendent is a promotional post from that of Assistant which carries the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- . The representation not having been decided, the appellant filed OA No.567-HR-96 before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). By order dated 20th May, 1997 the Tribunal disposed of OA with the following observations :-
“In this application, the agitation is for revision of pay scale of the applicant who is Superintendent in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/- to that of Rs.2000-3500/- on the ground that the duties and responsibilities of Superintendent are much higher than the Assistants working at Headquarters office of ICAR and he should be given the higher pay scale. As per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI and Anr. vs. P.V.Hariharan and Anr. O.A.No.7127 of 1993 arising out of OA 391/91, has precluded the Tribunals from adjudicating the matters of parity of pay or pay scales in the Government Department unless some discrimination is brought to the notice of the Court. This is a matter regarding parity of pay scales between two sets of posts, therefore, it is squarely covered by the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view thereof, this matter cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal.
2. However, it was also brought to our notice that the matter is engaging the attention of the authority concerned and the representation filed by the applicant on 24.10.1995 (A-3) is under active consideration.
3. In view thereof, the OA is disposed of with a direction that respondents shall expedite the decision in the matter. OA disposed of accordingly.”
A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the Tribunal declined to entertain the claim of the appellant by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India Vs. P.V. Hariharan & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 568 The Tribunal, however, directed that the respondent shall expedite the decision on the representation submitted by the appellant. Subsequently, NDRI sent a copy of the memorandum to the appellant on 2nd April, 1998 which reads as under:
MEMORANDUM
“With reference to the Court Case filed by Sh.Hukum Chand Gupta Asstt. Administrative Officer, NDRI, Karnal, under OA No.567/HR/96 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandiga
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
